Sartre is the pen name of James Hall, a reformed, former political operative. Educated in the Liberal Arts
with formal instruction in History, Philosophy and Political Science, has served
as training for activism, on the staff of several politicians and in many campaigns.
He has written columns for many popular political websites, including his own called Breaking All The Rules, which he describes as "genuine paleo conservative populism you can trust." In the first
hour, we'll discuss the loss of civil liberties as we live under new feudalism. James also discusses the
human condition and how natural law is no longer being adhered to. Government destroys
natural rights and denies humanity's inherent autonomy and sovereignty. We'll also
talk about the Articles of Confederation and the Declaration of Independence, which James says is
the greatest document in America. Then, James talks about the legal system and how lawyers do not understand
or support the US constitution. In the second hour, we begin discussing the issue
of unpaid debt, which is a fundamental issue the elitists use to keep the current
scheme going. Hall talks about how unreasonable situations continue to get worse intentionally. We'll
also talk about collectivism, egalitarianism as a religion and political correctness. Later, we talk
about what we can do to stop this current system and the effectiveness of civil disobedience.

Book reveals how close we came to losing WWII Sunday, December 26, 1999 SF Examiner

Matthews, being a devoted Anglophile and a lover of a centralized government, is a great example of a misguided and ignorant
reader of history. Did we really win WWII? I submit that America was the great loser!

Only those who adore FDR
and the centralized federal government that he wrought, would accept this inaccurate assessment of history. Was America a
'Socialist' country before FDR? Did the US have a significant national debit before FDR? Did the federal government regulate
ever facet of America life before FDR? Was American foreign policy that of an empire prior to FDR? And was it not FDR's
appointments that allowed for the courts to become the destroyer of the Constitution? The answers to all, are a resounding
YES.

The America pre WWII and post WWII are two totally different countries. FDR was just as much a Totalitarian
as Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and any Japanese military elite. But Churchill (who Matthew's believes should be the man of
the century), is the most deceptive of them all. For he created the alliance with Stalin (evil incarnate), suckered the US
into the European conflict, refused to provide intelligence intercepts of the Pearl Harbor attack, declared war on Germany
over England's alliance with Poland (with the knowledge that Poland would never be defended) and destroyed what was left of
the independence of the English nation as a major power.

Communism was the great benefactor of WWII. This most
hideous of central control systems, was the legacy of the post WWII era; fifty years of a Cold War nuclear terror, killings
and despair for millions.

America would never be the same, and it is highly unlikely that we will be able to regain
our national soul. If you are unable to understand this circumstance of history, you will not be able to know who your 'real'
enemies are. That is the value of Pat Buchanan's book. The choice is very simple. Do you want a Republic or an Empire?
Do you want an America that allows for individual's to rule themselves or are you willing to give your allegiance to a central
government that claims ever bite of power as any of the Totalitarian regime's of the 30's. Just because you live in material
comfort and seem to be secure in your daily lives, doesn't mean that your central government will not demand compliance to
ever more restrictions on your Liberty. Is that what you want for America? Is that what a American really is? Is that the
kind of country that all the brave men, who fought all these wars, bleed and died for? I think not.

The wars of
this twenty century were all misguided, tragic and destructive to this country. Our current plight can most certainly be
traced to this systematic perversion of our principles. Reread Washington's Farewell Address. It says it all! When will
this country ever learn? At least you have an opportunity to rethink this issue. The evidence is available, if you will
consider the review. What will be your choice? To remain the prisoner of your 'politically correct' society, or will you
allow yourself to be set free?

BRIT HUME: This year is the 20th anniversary of the onset of the AIDS epidemic, and it comes amid disturbing evidence that
the epidemic is now worsening. This despite the major expenditure of public money on research on the disease and a vast public
awareness campaign that made those little AIDS ribbons the fixture on lapels at countless events. But there is a view that
these very campaigns have not only failed to stem the disease, but actually contributed to its spread. And one who strongly
holds that view is David Horowitz, the onetime leftist radical who is now President of the conservative Center for the Study
of Popular Culture. Welcome sir.

There is no worse lie than a truth misunderstood by those who hear it.

- William James

The Internet and the Death of the News Monopoly

by J. Orlin Grabbe

When the goldsmith Johnann Gutenberg and his financial partner Johann Fust established their printing shop at Mainz around
1448 A.D., one of their first projects was the publication of St. Jerome's translation of the Vulgate Bible. Then a scientific
work, Pliny's Natural History, was printed in Venice in 1469, and by 1500 there were 40,000 book editions on many subjects,
each running to 200 or 300 copies, for a total of about ten million books in Europe.

The printing revolution had
massive social impact. Firstly, the Church had always taken the view that it was the sole interpreter of holy scripture. Hence
it did not hold popular translations of the Bible in high regard. After all, if everyone could read scripture, they would
begin forming their own biblical interpretations, and asking their own questions about the contrast between Church practice
and Western Christianity's supposed intellectual foundations. The Church's interpretive filter, or editorial process, would
be undermined. And the Church's fears were well - founded. One example is Erasmus of Rotterdam's Praise of Folly which appeared
in 1511. He satirized the Church, among other institutions, and then in 1516 published a translation of the Greek text of
the New Testament. The public became aware of a number of short-comings in basic ecclesiastical writings, because they had
direct access to the materials on which those writings were based.

Moreover, the Gutenberg revolution brought
about a democratization in book ownership. Books were no longer the sole province of the rich. Reading was no longer a skill
whose value was limited to those with access to the manuscript library of the Church or that of the local Prince. There was
no guarantee, of course, that popular tastes would run in academically or ecclesiastically approved channels--to texts like
Pliny's Natural History or Jerome's Bible. The early 1500s saw a slew of romances of chivalry, such as Amadis de Gaul by Garci
Ordonez de Montalvo. But neither were these works without consequence: Visions of adventure drove the conquistadors on their
knight's errands to look for El Dorado and the Amazons. "California" is the name of an island in Sergas de Esplandian,
a book sequel to Amadis de Gaul. The New World is littered with names from the literature of chivalry.

A democratic
revolution similar to Gutenberg's is taking place today in the transmission and presentation of news. The Internet, in general,
and the published pages of the World-Wide Web, in particular, undermine the authority of the priestly caste of editors presiding
over the New York Times. The Internet's information transmission mechanisms bypass and make a mockery of the highly selective
news filters imposed at CNN. Original news, research, and opinion--both the good and the bad--often goes from producer to
consumer unadulterated. On the Internet one can construct one's own daily newspaper by linking to a selection of web pages,
subscribing to chosen mailing lists, and accessing preferred newsgroups. One can also compete with the established media on
specialized topics by publishing ones own web page.

Traditional media senses the competition, and would like to
eliminate it if it could. But such is no longer possible. The Church had been able to kill the heretics called Albigensians,
and to put a temporary stop to that nonsense. But because of the revolution in publishing, it was never able to stamp out
the heresy of Lutheranism of people who read the source materials, made their own interpretation, and agreed with Luther.
(Never mind if Luther was right or wrong.) Similarly, the New York Times would like to kill all the heretics it calls "conspiracy
theorists," but this is not possible. So it is relegated to preaching to the choir, and intoning sadly to any portion
of its audience actually paying attention-- shaking its head at the devil worshipers who live somewhere south of Fourteenth
Street or west of Riverside Drive. But this cannot change the fact that it is no longer required that one kiss the ring of
Abe Rosenthal or his successors in order to be heard.

Of course, with democratization and freedom comes responsibility
and uncertainty. The road to heaven is no longer a confident matter of following someone else's instruction. Truth relies
upon the reader's discrimination. The burden is shifted from the editor-priest-intermediator and transferred to the news consumer-layperson.
There was no guarantee that someone who was not a Greek scholar might not read in the New Testament about the miracle at Cana,
and interpret the Greek word oinos as "grape juice". That is, they might say, Jesus didn't turn water into wine;
he turned water into grape juice. There is no necessary guarantee of truth under democracy, any more than there is hope of
truth under tyranny.

So on the Internet you may have non-pilots and non-engineers discussing the downing of TWA
800. You have auto mechanics asking questions about the Federal Reserve, and housewives concerned with cryptology policy and
other privacy issues. There are non-journalism majors writing their own newsletters, and non-forensic experts meticulously
combing the evidence relating to the death of Vince Foster. So what? While there is no guarantee the truth will necessarily
emerge in this process, there is a greater probability that some of the truth will emerge some of the time than when the editors
of the New York Times, sure of their pipeline to heaven, present us with the sanctified Fiske report, and declare it a revelation
of God, or good government, or whatever.

Walter Lippmann said that the only way an editor could deal with the
day's deluge of information was to hold pre - existing mental categories called "stereotypes," and to file away
each event accordingly. Much of the traditional media has divided the ebb and flow of daily events into some equivalent of
the ancient Greek separation of the material world into the four elements of earth, air, fire, and water. But the Internet
has potentially fragmented Lippmann's limited stereotypes into 20 million diverse web pages.

The World-Wide Web
has not yet evolved into a Periodic Table of Elements, where news is concerned. But it has that potential. And that's why
it's important.

BATR email to Bret Baier at Special Report on Fox News Network
1/12/16

Subject: Fox News NeoCons destroys all credibility

David Gregory appearing on your program is the last straw. Special Report discussions are unwatchable. I sent out
a survey to my conservative newsletter reader and asked what TV media you distrust. Fox News tied with CNN as the most untruthful
worth.

You lost a viewer. The Newspeak and propaganda for the RINO establishment
is an insult.

Try none of the above. If you want balance you should
be featuring Pat Buchanan who is a genuine conservative verse the apologists for the corporatist establishment Fox News
bills as “so called” conservative. Your business network took off the air the best program ever presented on television,
Freedom Watch with Judge Napolitano. http://freedomwatchonfox.com/

Now if you want to “balance” your discussion with a true liberal,
why not make Ralph Nader a regular on your panel? The last time I had lunch with Ralph, he proved clearly he can make his
case for the loony left.

If Roger Ailes truly wanted to be “fair and
balance” he would program a Buchanan/Nader face off in the tradition of Buckley/Vidal. Read the essay, The Political
Significance of Gore Vidal http://batr.org/solitary/080512.html

Face reality, Fox puts forth fake pseudo conservatives.

Respectfully, a seasoned political observer knows that RT Russia Today provides more objective reporting than any
of your Psycho-Babble that appears out of an establishment water carrier like George Will. Charles Krauthammer is an Israel
First NeoCon who would more at home working for the Mossad or in the IDF.

The fundamental point is that Fox News has lost the confidence of knowledgeable Americans. Maybe you should bring
back Wayne Simmons and give him his own show.

Human nature is not to be coerced but persuaded and we shall persuade her by satisfying the necessary desires if they are
not going to be injurious but, if they are going to injure, by relentlessly banning them. - Epicurus